CK's Blog

This is not surprising (sadly). But it will surprise a lot of (myopic) marketers.

Not the happiest survey results to report on as we begin a new year, but, the way I look at it, these findings give marketers a clear set of action points to get cracking on in '08.

According to the CMO Council:

"Despite an increased emphasis on their customers, most b-to-b technology companies continue to fall short in meeting customer expectations, according to a study released this week by the Chief Marketing Officer Council.

The online study, conducted in the last six months, took the pulse of 1,000 top b-to-b technology buyers, IT marketing and customer relationship executives and their channel partners.

According to the study, 56% of vendors perceive themselves as being customer-centric, but only 12% of customers agree.

(I think we can all agree that 12% statistic is deplorable. But my concern is that 56% figure, since the implication is a lot of myopic marketers.)

"The study also found that more than 30% of customer respondents said they would terminate relationships with companies that fail to gain their trust; 62% of would scale back existing relationships; and 7% would no longer consider the vendor for future business."

(I talk trust quite a bit here--and how it directly affects the bottom line. Sadly, most companies don't understand how tough and expensive trust is to earn back...until they've already lost it.)

"More than half of customers surveyed described their relationship with vendors as "dependent and captive," "struggling for common ground" or, in the worst scenario, "combative and adversarial."'

(Which adjective up there do you find most alarming--captive or combative?)

I'm going to make an educated assumption here: it's not just BtoB technology buyers that feel these levels of dissatisfaction. I've worked BtoB a lot more than BtoC for the last 7 years and one of my sticking points is when a client wants to claim the "trusted advisor/trusted partner" role. I'm always asking how they can prove that--and how their customers view them. Many times they're grasping to tell me customer feedback, so maybe '08 can be a return to the basics of listening to and working with customers...because with a 12% approval rating, there's much work to do on some very basic fronts (talking Marketing 101 not Web 2.0 fronts)

CMO Council's website is here (and thanks to them for compiling the report.)

PS: Two ways to guard against myopia are to (1) listen to customers and (2) interact with customers through initiatives such as Customer Advisory Boards (which I'll write on and videocast on in the coming weeks).

Risk vs. Reward (vs. reality)

In a good "reality check" post, Lewis Green cites, "This just in from "The Pew Internet & American Life Project" of people's "evolving relationships to cyberspace. Pew found that 73 percent of U.S. adults own a cell phone, 68 percent have a desktop computer, 30 percent possess a laptop, and 73 percent connect to the Internet."

But Lewis also cited this stat..."Only 8 percent of U.S. adults are "deep users" of Web 2.0 features, using them to express themselves publicly."

There is much good discussion on these numbers and their impact over here. But right here I'd sure like to know: in selling/evangelizing/promoting--or just plain arguing--that your companies and clients should start using social media tools, are you guys using only a reward argument...or also one of lowering risk?

Sure, I prefer using the benefit (reward) argument over the fear (risk) play but I'm providing both to clients. Otherwise I fear I'm doing them--and this medium--a disservice. While the benefits clearly span interaction, relevance, authenticity, awareness and more, the risk argument goes like so:

Why risk happy customers? Web 2.0 tech should never be viewed as only a promotional outlet, but as an ongoing customer feedback (and customer research) loop. For both existing and planned offerings. If we miss out on it being a feedback mechanism then, I fear, we miss the Web 2.0 boat--and its main purpose of connecting we marketers with our markets.

Why risk market share? We also need to experiment (read: innovate) or else we run the risk of losing our competitive advantage. Innovating means trying new things, strategies, tools, programs, products and services (as well as improving on old ones).

Why risk budget? While we can account for how well much of our marketing spend is spent we can't account for the efficacy of the entire spend. And 2.0 is far more cost-effective than other media. Even though other media has more eyeballs, why not apportion a % of the budget to social media so as to limit the risk of spending unwisely?

What say you? Or what do you say to your companies and clients? Are your arguments working...or do your companies and clients fear Web 2.0 is too risky?  (perhaps turn the risk argument around to work in your favor.)

P.S.: For any of you who need a bevy of benefits in arguing more adoption, a collage of reasons (value) is right here.

Best read with a shot (or two) of Vodka.

I must have read this post by Spike over at Brains On Fire 5 times. It's quite sobering (hence my excellent recommendation for the booze). I've included half of the list he's compiled here...

• 84%: Proportion of B2B campaigns resulting in falling sales.
• 54 cents: Average return in sales for every $1 spent on advertising.
• 100%: Increase needed in advertising spend to add 1-2% in sales.
• 95%: Failure rate for new product introductions.

...take another shot (or two) and read the rest of the list and sources here.

Never fear, there's never been a better time to be a better marketer--and maybe these numbers will get companies to wake up, open up, and seek better ways to listen and connect with their audiences.